Equipment Options: Backpack and walk-behind blowers

Gina Kellogg Hogan

A rather fanatical anti-blower advocate in Portola Valley, Calif., has come
up with a new term for power blowers: noise bazookas. This Santa
Barbara-area resident was persistent enough in his anti-blower efforts to
garner enough local support to ban the use of leaf blowers in his city.
He's not alone in his intolerance of blowers. In cities across the country,
council members--often with little understanding of decibel levels,
industry standards or blower technology--are putting landscape contractors
and others who rely on blower use virtually out of business. And despite
the fact that manufacturers in the grounds-maintenance industry have been
devoting millions of dollars to develop technology to lower blower sound
levels and emissions for years, a group in Los Angeles currently is working
to come up with a totally new blower technology with a timeline to have a
concept model ready for manufacture before next spring.

Problems facing power blowers have become so widespread that the Wall
Street Journal reported a story on the topic on its front page last
November. Headlined "If you want to hear this catwoman hiss, just blow in
her ear," the article described how actress Julie Newmar, best known as
"Catwoman" on the 1960s "Batman" television series, organized a group of
local residents in the Los Angeles area to support banning blowers.
Resorting to sometimes questionable actions, Newmar took the offensive. For
example, when one of her neighbors refused to stop his Latino gardener from
using a blower, Newmar took a can of black spray paint and promptly
scrawled the word "ruido" in large letters in an alley outside of his
house. "Ruido" is Spanish for noise, and the neighbor was not amused. He
filed a vandalism complaint against Newmar. Nevertheless, her tactics
gained enough support that it is now illegal to use a gasoline-powered
blower within 500 feet of a residence in Los Angeles.

In response to the blower bans, landscapers and others have come up with
some tactics that blower opponents may find are worse than their original
complaints. For example, some blower users have converted older, louder and
non-CARB (California Air Resources Board)-certified blowers to run on
methanol.

Other former blower users have turned to using "environmentally and
neighbor-friendly" rakes. However, in so doing, these landscapers have
become much less efficient at their jobs, now performing only half the
amount of work they previously accomplished with gas-powered blowers. As a
result, many landscapers' incomes have either been cut nearly in half or
they've been forced to raise their prices, which has caused some customers
to cancel service.

Blower nazis
In literature he distributed, the anti-blower zealot in Portola Valley
claimed that none of the landscapers he confronted could cite specific
economic facts supporting financial ruin that would result from banning
blowers. Evidently he never spoke with Robert Hurst, president of Golden
Eagle Distributing Corp. (Rocklin, Calif.).

Hurst put together an oversized flyer that he distributed among his blower
dealers. In that flyer, he cited statistics compiled by the director of
parks for Whittier, Calif., showing that a ban on blowers would have
drastic budgetary ramifications on his park department. "For one park
alone," Hurst writes, "one with an area of 168,989 square feet, the loss of
blower use could conceivably cost tax payers an additional $4,000 per
cleanup. According to the study, while it takes 2.25 staff-hours at a total
cost of $32.07 to complete the park with a backpack blower, it would take
282 staff-hours at a cost of $4,020.19 to do the same job with a broom."

The voice of reason
Despite the irrational thinking that often underlies this emotional issue,
some cities have calmly listened to the arguments presented against such
bans. Blower users in these cities have explained that users and others can
reach compromises if they pragmatically discuss the issues. Such
compromises include limiting loud noises between certain hours of the day
and promoting the "courteous" use of blowers.

Of course, blower manufacturers have been advocating such programs for
several years, ever since the first complaints began to filter into the
media. Echo Inc. (Lake Zurich, Ill.)--the most-vocal of all blower
companies in facing the bans head-on--promotes a "Be smart!" campaign,
addressing the appropriate use of power equipment and blowers. Other
suggestions have included not using blowers at full throttle, which
typically isn't necessary to get the job done.

One of the most frustrating aspects of the bans, however, is the refusal of
city councils to consider how today's newer blowers have been designed to
be much quieter than older models. Some blower supporters have tried to
reason with city council members who are considering bans that, in just a
few years' time, most of the older blowers will have worn out and been
replaced with newer, quieter versions. And, in public displays of unity,
some landscapers have even given up their old blowers and spent unbudgeted
dollars to purchase new units to prove how they are trying to work with the
cities.

That tactic didn't work in Los Angeles, which--as mentioned--banned blower
use. However, after some local landscapers organized a hunger strike to
protest the ban, the city evidently decided the problem was more
significant than city leaders had realized. As a result, the city began
talks to try to work with local landscapers to come up with a solution to
meeting their need for the units. But the solution may seem rather absurd
to blower manufacturers, who have devoted millions of dollars and man-hours
to designing quieter, lower-emission blowers. In L.A., the city's
Department of Water and Power has organized a Leaf Blower Technology Task
Force to look at designing and manufacturing a new technology of blower.

Scott Neuman, a business analyst with the city's Department of Water and
Power, explains. "We were asked by the city council to come up with a new
technology," he says. "The task force is really an advisory group. It was
put together by those that represent users of leaf blowers as well as those
who have been concerned with leaf-blower use. The main purpose is to come
up with criteria by which we would judge if a leaf blower is acceptable
and, if we can find one that is acceptable, then to find what kind of
minimum characteristics would be desirable in that unit."

Attempting a new technology
In March, the task force developed equipment-review criteria and performed
a preliminary review of several prototype leaf blowers. Besides testing a
"baseline" gas unit, task-force members reviewed several units that local
people had designed, literally, in their garages. They tested the
units--three electric (corded and battery-powered) units, a
gasoline-powered blower with a vapor-recovery system and a gasoline-powered
unit converted to methanol--and compared them to one another and to a
rake/broom combination.

Afterward, Neuman says, "We put together a brief, preliminary report for
the city council. We reported that nothing we'd reviewed [other than the
gas-powered unit] was acceptable to the gardeners at the present time."

At about the same time, Neuman continues, the task force got in touch with
an internationally acclaimed L.A.-based research and development firm,
AeroVironment, which offered to do some gratis design and testing of new
blower technologies.

"We loaned them some equipment that we used--gas and corded power units,"
Neuman explains, "and they looked at that. And they shadowed one of the
crews that did maintenance work [in the area] and just observed what was
being done so they could take some notes and learn what the characteristics
[of the blowers] ought to be."

After an initial 6-week period, AeroVironment got back to the task force.
"They said they wanted to develop a concept unit, like a prototype. They
made a proposal to develop one with energy-efficient, off-the-shelf
components and then one that was more cutting-edge, that wouldn't be
cost-effectively available yet," Neuman says.

"Our main goal is to put together two prototypes, then test them, modify
them and develop a final specification on what we'd be looking at in a
final model."

"If it looks like [a concept design] is adequate, we'll award a development
incentive for the production and commercialization of these units," Neuman
says.

"Then the Water and Power Department will help with the marketing of this
and getting it to the gardeners. [But for now,] we're waiting for all the
Ts to be crossed and Is to be dotted on developing these concept units."

Neuman admits that the task is a challenge. And he is adamant in
maintaining that the group is not trying to point a finger of failure at
anyone. "We will take a look at the problem with AeroVironment with a
different perspective [from the current blower manufacturers]. The
manufacturers haven't done that. They haven't had to design a blower based
on the criteria that we've set. Ultimately, we're not looking to go into
production on this anyway. We'll be expecting the manufacturers to step up
to the plate and take this on. But what we'll have done is set a minimum
standard.

"Were not trying to tell the manufacturers that we can do something better
than them," Neuman emphasizes. "We're just trying to say that if we look at
it from this angle, then maybe we can come up with something different."
Only time will tell.